The unity of Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian
theology meets us in the writings of John, who, in the closing decades
of the first century, summed up the final results of the preceding
struggles of the apostolic age and transmitted them to posterity. Paul
had fought out the great conflict with Judaism and secured the
recognition of the freedom and universality of the gospel for all time
to come. John disposes of this question with one sentence: "The law was
given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."815815John 1:17. His
theology marks the culminating height of divine knowledge in the
apostolic age. It is impossible to soar higher than the eagle, which is
his proper symbol.816816 Herein Baur agrees with Neander
and Schmid. He says of the Johannean type (l.c., p. 351):
In ihm erreicht die neuteitamentliche
Theologie ihre höchste Stufe und ihre vollendetste
Form." This admission makes it all the
more impossible to attribute the fourth Gospel to a literary forger of
the second century. See also some excellent remarks of Weiss, pp. 605
sqq., and the concluding chapter of Reuss on Paul and John. His views are so much identified with the words
of his Lord, to whom he stood more closely related than any other
disciple, that it is difficult to separate them; but the prologue to
his Gospel contains his leading ideas, and his first Epistle the
practical application. The theology of the Apocalypse is also
essentially the same, and this goes far to confirm the identity of
authorship.817817 For the theology of the
Apocalypse as compared with that of the Gospel and Epistles of John,
see especially Gebhardt, The Doctrine of the Apoc., transl. by
Jefferson, Edinb., 1878.

John was not a logician, but a seer; not a
reasoner, but a mystic; he does not argue, but assert; he arrives at
conclusions with one bound, as by direct intuition. He speaks from
personal experience and testifies of that which his eyes have seen and
his ears heard and his hands have handled, of the glory of the
Only-begotten of the Father full of grace and truth.818818John 1:14 (ἐθεασάμεθα
τὴν δόξαν
αὐτοῦ); 1 John 1:1-3.

John’s theology is marked by
artless simplicity and spiritual depth. The highest art conceals art.
As in poetry, so in religion, the most natural is the most perfect. He
moves in a small circle of ideas as compared with Paul, but these ideas
are fundamental and all-comprehensive. He goes back to first principles
and sees the strong point without looking sideways or taking note of
exceptions. Christ and Antichrist, believers and unbelievers, children
of God and children of the devil, truth and falsehood, light and
darkness, love and hatred, life and death: these are the great
contrasts under which he views the religious world. These he sets forth
again and again with majestic simplicity.

John and Paul.

John’s type of doctrine is less
developed and fortified than Paul’s, but more ideal.
His mind was neither so rich nor so strong, but it soared higher and
anticipated the beatific vision. Although Paul was far superior to him
as a scholar (and practical worker), yet the ancient Greek church saw
in John the ideal theologian.819819 In the strictest sense
of θεολόγος
as the chief champion of the eternal deity of
the Logos: John 1:1:θεός ἧν
ὁ λόγος.So in the superscription of the Apocalypse in several cursive
MSS. John’s spirit and style
may be compared to a calm, clear mountain-lake which reflects the image
of the sun) moon, and stars, while Paul resembles the mountain-torrent
that rushes over precipices and carries everything before it; yet there
are trumpets of war in John, and anthems of peace in Paul. The one
begins from the summit, with God and the Logos, the other from the
depths of man’s sin and misery; but both meet in the
God-man who brings God down to man and lifts man up to God. John is
contemplative and serene, Paul is aggressive and polemical; but both
unite in the victory of faith and the never-ending dominion of love.
John’s theology is Christological,
Paul’s soteriological; John starts from the person of
Christ, Paul from his work; but their christology and soteriology are
essentially agreed. John’s ideal is life eternal,
Paul’s ideal is righteousness; but both derive it from
the same source, the union with Christ, and find in this the highest
happiness of man. John represents the church triumphant, Paul the
church militant of his day and of our day, but with the full assurance
of final victory even over the last enemy.

The Central Idea.

John’s Christianity centres in
the idea of love and life, which in their last root are identical. His
dogmatics are summed up in the word: God first loved us; his ethics in
the exhortation: Therefore let us love Him and the brethren. He is
justly called the apostle of love. Only we must not understand this
word in a sentimental, but in the highest and purest moral sense.
God’s love is his self-communication to man;
man’s love is a holy self-consecration to God. We may
recognize—in rising stages of
transformation—the same fiery spirit in the Son of
Thunder who called vengeance from heaven; in the Apocalyptic seer who
poured out the vials of wrath against the enemies of Christ; and in the
beloved disciple who knew no middle ground, but demanded undivided
loyalty and whole-souled devotion to his Master. In him the highest
knowledge and the highest love coincide: knowledge is the eye of love,
love the heart of knowledge; both constitute eternal life, and eternal
life is the fulness of happiness.820820John 17 3; 15:11; 16:24; 1 John
1:4.

The central truth of John and the central fact in
Christianity itself is the incarnation of the eternal Logos as the
highest manifestation of God’s love to the world. The
denial of this truth is the criterion of Antichrist.821821 Comp. John 1:14; 3:16; 1 John
4:1-3.

The Principal Doctrines.

I. The doctrine of God.
He is spirit (πνεῦμα), he is light (φῶς) he is love (ἀγάπη).822822John 4:24; 1 John 1:5; 4:8, 16.
The first definition or oracle is from Christ’s
dialogue with the woman of Samaria, who could, of course, not grasp the
full meaning, but understood sufficiently its immediate practical
application to the question of dispute between the Samaritans and the
Jews concerning the worship on Gerizim or Jerusalem. These are the briefest and yet the
profoundest definitions which can be given of the infinite Being of all
beings. The first is put into the mouth of Christ, the second and third
are from the pen of John. The first sets forth God’s
metaphysical, the second his intellectual, the third his moral
perfection; but they are blended in one.

God is spirit, all spirit, absolute spirit (in
opposition to every materialistic conception and limitation); hence
omnipresent, all-pervading, and should be worshipped, whether in
Jerusalem or Gerizim or anywhere else, in spirit and in truth.

God is light, all light without a spot of
darkness, and the fountain of all light, that is of truth, purity, and
holiness.

God is love; this John repeats twice, looking upon
love as the inmost moral essence of God, which animates, directs, and
holds together all other attributes; it is the motive power of his
revelations or self-communications, the beginning and the end of his
ways and works, the core of his manifestation in Christ.

II. The doctrine of Christ’s Person. He is the eternal and
the incarnate Logos or Revealer of God. No man has ever yet seen God
(θεόν, without the article,
God’s nature, or God as God); the only-begotten Son
(or God only-begotten),823823 There is a remarkable variation
of reading in John 1:18 between μονογενής
θεός ,one who is
God only-begotten, andὁ
μονογενής
υἱός ,the
only-begotten Son. (A third
reading: ὁ
μονογενὴς
θεός ,"the
only-begotten God," found in א’ and 33, arose
simply from a combination of the two readings, the article being
improperly transferred from the second to the first.) The two readings
are of equal antiquity; θεός is
supported by the oldest Greek MSS., nearly all Alexandrian or Egyptian
(א*
BC*L, also the Peshitto Syr.);υἱός by
the oldest versions (Itala Vulg., Curet. Syr., also by the secondary
uncials and all known cursives except 33). The usual abbreviations in
the uncial MS., Θο-for θεός
and ΥΟ for υἱός ,may
easily be confounded. The connection of μονογενής
withθεόςis less
natural than with υἱὸς although John undoubtedly could call the Son θεός (not ὁ
θεός), and
did so in 1:1. Μονογενής
θεόςsimply combines
the two attributes of the Logos, θεός 1:1,
and μονογενής,
1:14. For a learned and ingenious defence of
θεός see Hort’s Dissertations (Cambridge,
1877), Westcott on St. John (p. 71), and Westcott and
Hort’s Gr. Test. Introd. and Append., p. 74.
Tischendorf and nearly all the German commentators (except Weiss)
adopt υἱός, and
Dr. Abbot, of Cambridge, Mass., has written two very able papers in
favor of this reading, one in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1861,
pp. 840-872, and another in the " Unitarian Review" for June, 1875. The
Westminster Revision first adopted " God" in the text, but afterwards
put it on the margin. Both readings are intrinsically unobjectionable,
and the sense is essentially the same. Μονογενής
does not necessarily convey the Nicene idea of
eternal generation, but simply the unique character and superiority of
the eternal and uncreated sonship of Christ over the sonship of
believers which is a gift of grace. It shows his intimate relation to
the Father, as the Pauline πρωτότοκος
his sovereign relation to the world. who is in the bosom824824 Lit."towards the bosom"
(εἰς
τὸν
κόλπον),
i.e., leaning on, and moving to the bosom. It expresses the
union of motion and rest and the closest and tenderest intimacy, as
between mother and child, like the German term Schoosskind,
bosom-child. Comp. πρός τὸν
θεόν John 1:1 and
Prov. 8:30, where Wisdom (the Logos) says: "I was near Him as one
brought up with Him, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always
before him." of the Father, he and he
alone (εκεῖνος) declared him and brought to light,
once and forever, the hidden mystery of his being.825825 With this sentence the Prologue
returns to the beginning and suggests the best reason why Christ is
called Logos. He is the Exegete, the Expounder, the Interpreter of the
hidden being, of God. "The word ἐξηγήσατο
used by classical writers of the interpretation of
divine mysteries. The absence of the object in the original is
remarkable. Thus the literal rendering is simply, he made
declaration (Vulg. ipse enarravit). Comp. Acts 15: 4.
Westcott, in loc. See the classical parallels in
Wetstein.

This perfect knowledge of the Father, Christ
claims himself in that remarkable passage in Matthew
11:27, which strikingly
confirms the essential harmony of the Johannean and Synoptical
representations of Christ.

John (and he alone) calls Christ the "Logos" of
God, i.e., the embodiment of God and the organ of all his
revelations.826826John 1:1, 14:1 John 1:1; Rev.
19:13. The Logos theory of John is the fruitful germ of the
speculations of the Greek church on the mysteries of the incarnation
and the trinity. See my ed. of Lange’s Com. on
John, pp. 51 and 55 sqq., where also the literature is given. On
the latest discussions see Weiss in the sixth ed. of
Meyer’s Com. on John (1880), pp. 49
sqq. Λόγος
means both ratio andoratio reason and
speech, which are inseparably connected. " Logos," being masculine in
Greek, is better fitted as a designation of Christ than our neuter "
Word." Hence Ewald, in defiance of German grammar, renders it "der
Wort."On the apocalyptic designation ὁ λογος
τοῦ θυοῦ and on the christology of the Apocalypse, see Gebhardt,
l.c., 94 and 333 sqq. On Philo’s idea of the
Logos I refer to Schürer, Neutestam. Zeitgeschichte,
pp. 648 sqq., and the works of Gfrörer, Zeller, Frankel,
etc., there quoted. As the human reason or thought is expressed in
word, and as the word is the medium of making our thoughts known to
others, so God is known to himself and to the world in and through
Christ as the personal Word. While "Logos" designates the metaphysical
and intellectual relation, the term "Son" designates the moral relation
of Christ to God, as a relation of love, and the epithet
"only-begotten" or "only-born" (μονογενής) raises his sonship as entirely
unique above every other sonship, which is only a reflection of it. It
is a blessed relation of infinite knowledge and infinite love. The
Logos is eternal, he is personal, he is divine.827827 These three ideas are contained
in the first verse of the Gospel, which has stimulated and puzzled the
profoundest minds from Origen and Augustin to Schelling and Goethe.
Mark the unique union of transparent simplicity and inexhaustible
depth, and the symmetry of the three clauses. The subject (λόγος) and the verb (ἧν) are three times
repeated. " The three clauses contain all that it is possible for man
to realize as to the essential nature of the Word in relation to time
and mode of being and character: He was (1) in the beginning: He
was (2) with God: He was (3) God. At the same time these
three clauses answer to the three great moments of the Incarnation of
the Word declared in John 1:14. He who ’was
God,’ became flesh: He who
’was with God,’ tabernacled among
us (comp. 1 John 1:2): He who ’was in the
beginning,’ became (in time)." Westcott (in
Speaker’s Com.). A similar interpretation is
given by Lange. The personality of the Logos is denied by
Beyschlag. See Notes (in text at end of § 72). He was in the beginning
before creation or from eternity. He is, on the one hand, distinct from
God and in the closest communion with him (πρὸς τὸν
θεόν); on the other hand he is himself
essentially divine, and therefore called "God" (θεός, but not ὁ
θεός).828828 Here we have the germ (but the
germ only) of the orthodox distinction between unity of essence and
trinity of persons or hypostases; also of the distinction between an
immanent, eternal trinity, and an economical trinity, which is revealed
in time (in the works of creation, redemption, and sanctification). A
Hebrew monotheist could not conceive of an eternal and independent
being of a different essence (ἑτεροούσις) existing besides the one God. This would be
dualism.

This pre-existent Logos is the agent of the
creation of all things visible and invisible.829829John 1:3, with a probable
allusion to Gen. 1:3, "God said," as ἐν αρχῇ
refers to bereshith, Gen. 1:1. The negative
repetition οὐδὲ
ἔν, prorsus nihil,
not even one thing (stronger than
οὐδένnihil), excludes
every form of dualism (against the Gnostics), and makes the
πάντα absolutely unlimited. The Socinian interpretation, which
confines it to the moral creation, is grammatically
impossible. He is the fulness and
fountain of life (ἡ
ζωή, the true, immortal life, as distinct
from βίος, the natural, mortal life), and light
(τὸ φῶς,which includes intellectual and moral
truth, reason and conscience) to all men. Whatever elements of truth,
goodness, and beauty may be found shining like stars and meteors in the
darkness of heathendom, must be traced to the Logos, the universal
Life-giver and Illuminator.

Here Paul and John meet again; both teach the
agency of Christ in the creation, but John more clearly connects him
with all the preparatory revelations before the incarnation. This
extension of the Logos revelation explains the high estimate which some
of the Greek fathers, (Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen)
put upon the Hellenic, especially the Platonic philosophy, as a
training-school of the heathen mind for Christ.

The Logos revealed himself to every man, but in a
special manner to his own chosen people; and this revelation culminated
in John the Baptist, who summed up in himself the meaning of the law
and the prophets, and pointed to Jesus of Nazareth as "the Lamb of God
that taketh away the sin of the world."

At last the Logos became flesh.830830John 1:14: ὁ λόγος
σὰρξ
ἐγένετο a sentence of immeasurable import, the leading idea not
only of the Prologue, but of the Christian religion and of the history
of mankind. It marks the close of the preparation for Christianity and
the beginning of its introduction into the human race. Bengel calls
attention to the threefold antithetic correspondence between 1:1 and
1:14: The Logos was (ἧν) in the
beginning became (ἐγένετο)

God, flesh,

with God. and dwelt among us.

He completed his
revelation by uniting himself with man once and forever in all things,
except sin.831831 Paul expresses the same idea:
God sent his Son "in the likeness of the flesh of sin," Rom. 8:3; comp.
Heb. 2:17; 4:15. See the note at the close of the section. The Hebraizing term "flesh" best expresses his
condescension to our fallen condition and the complete reality of his
humanity as an object of sense, visible and tangible, in strong
contrast with his immaterial divinity. It includes not only the body
(σῶμα), but also a human soul (ψυχή) and a rational spirit (νοῦς, πνεῦμα); for John ascribes them all to Christ.
To use a later terminology, the incarnation (ἐνσάρκωσις,incarnatio) is only a
stronger term for the assumption of humanity (ἐνανθρώπησις,Menschwerdung). The Logos became
man—not partially but totally, not apparently but
really, not transiently but permanently, not by ceasing to be divine,
nor by being changed into a man, but by an abiding, personal union with
man. He is henceforth the Godman. He tabernacled on earth as the true
Shekinah, and manifested to his disciples the glory of the only
begotten which shone from the veil of his humanity.832832John 1:14: ἐσκήνωσεν
ἐν ἡμῖν, in allusion to the indwelling of Jehovah in the holy of
holies of the tabernacle (σκηνή) and
the temple. The humanity of Christ is now the tabernacle of God, and
the believers are the spectators of that glory. Comp. Rev. 7:15;
21:3 This is the
divine-human glory in the state of humiliation as distinct from the
divine glory in his preexistent state, and from the final and perfect
manifestation of his glory in the state of exaltation in which his
disciples shall share.833833John 17:5, 24; 1 John
3:2.

The fourth Gospel is a commentary on the ideas of
the Prologue. It was written for the purpose that the readers may
believe "that Jesus is the Christ (the promised Messiah), the Son of
God (in the sense of the only begotten and eternal Son), and that
believing they may have life in his name."834834John 20:31.

III. The Work of Christ
(Soteriology). This implies the conquest over sin and Satan, and the
procurement of eternal life. Christ appeared without sin, to the end
that he might destroy the works of the devil, who was a liar and
murderer from the beginning of history, who first fell away from the
truth and then brought sin and death into mankind.8358351 John 3:5, 8; comp. the words
of Christ, John 8:44. Christ laid down his
life and shed his blood for his sheep. By this self-consecration in
death he became the propitiation (ἱλασμός) for the sins of believers and for
the sins of the whole world.836836John 6:52-58; 10:11, 15; 1 John
2:2: αὐτὸς
ἱλασμός
ἐστιν περὶ
τῶν
ἁμαρτιῶν
ἡμῶν, οὐ
περὶ τῶν
ἡμετέρων
δὲ μόνον,
αλλὰ καὶ
περὶ ὂλου
τοῦ
κόσμου.. The universality of the atonement
could not be more clearly expressed; but there is a difference between
universal sufficiency and universal efficiency. His blood cleanses from all the guilt and
contamination of sin. He is (in the language of the Baptist) the Lamb
of God that bears and takes away the sin of the world; and (in the
unconscious prophecy of Caiaphas) he died for the people.8378371 John 1:10; John 1:29; 11:50;
comp. 18:14. He was
priest and sacrifice in one person. And he continues his priestly
functions, being our Advocate in Heaven and ready to forgive us when we
sin and come to him in true repentance.8388381 John 2:1: ἐὰν τις
ἁμάρτῃ,
παράκλητον
ἔχομεν
πρὸς τὸν
πατέρα
Ἰησοῦν
Χριστὸν
δίκαιον.

This is the negative part of
Christ’s work, the removal of the obstruction which
separated us from God. The positive part consists in the revelation of
the Father, and in the communication of eternal life, which includes
eternal happiness. He is himself the Life and the Light of the world.8398391 John 1:2: ἡ ζωὴ
ἐφανερώθη,
καὶ
ἑωράκαμεν
καὶ
μαρτυροῦμεν
καὶ
ἀπαγγέλλομεν
ὑμῖντῆν
ζωήν τὴν
αἰώνιον
ἥτις ἧν
πρὸς τὸν
πατέρα καὶ
ἐφανερώθη
ἡμῖν. Comp. John 1:4; 5; 26; 14:6. The
passage 1 John 5:20: οὗτός
ἐστιν ὁ
ἀλιθινὸς
θεὸς καὶ
ζωὴ
αἰώνιος , is of doubtful application. The natural connection
of οὗτοςwith the immediately preceding Ἰησοῦ
Χριστῷ, and the parallel passages where Christ is called " life," favor
the reference to Christ; while the words ὁ
ἀληθινὸς
θεός suit better for
the Father. See Braune, Huther, Ebrard, Haupt, Rothe, in
loc. He
calls himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life. In him the true, the
eternal life, which was from the beginning with the Father, appeared
personally in human form. He came to communicate it to men. He is the
bread of life from heaven, and feeds the believers everywhere
spiritually without diminishing, as He fed the five thousand physically
with five loaves. That miracle is continued in the mystical
self-communication of Christ to his people. Whosoever believes in him
has eternal life, which begins here in the new birth and will be
completed in the resurrection of the body.840840John 6:47; and the whole
mysterious discourse which explains the spiritual meaning of the
preceding miracle.

Herein also the Apocalypse well agrees with the
Gospel and Epistles of John. Christ is represented as the victor of the
devil.841841Apoc. 12:1-12; 20:2. Comp. with
1 John 3:8; John 8:44; 12:31, 13:2, 27; 14 30; 16:11. He is the conquering Lion of the tribe of
Judah, but also the suffering Lamb slain for us. The figure of the
lamb, whether it be referred to the paschal lamb, or to the lamb in the
Messianic passage of Isaiah 53:7, expresses the idea of atoning
sacrifice which is fully realized in the death of Christ. He "washed"
(or, according to another reading, he "loosed") "us from our sins by
his blood;" he redeemed men "of every tribe, and tongue, and people,
and nation, and made them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests."
The countless multitude of the redeemed "washed their robes and made
them white (bright and shining) in the blood of the Lamb." This implies
both purification and sanctification; white garments being the symbols
of holiness.842842Apoc. 1:6; 5:6, 9, 12, 13;7:
14, etc. Comp. John 1:29; 17:19; 19:36; 1 John 1:7; 2:2; 5:6. The
apocalyptic diminutive ἀρνιον(agnellus, lambkin, pet-lamb) for ἀμνός is used to sharpen the contrast with the Lion. Paul Gerhardt has
reproduced it in his beautiful passion hymn: "EinLämmlein geht
und trägt die Schuld." Love was the motive which prompted him to give
his life for his people.843843Apoc. 1:5: "Unto him that
loveth us," etc.; comp. John 15:13; 1 John 3:16. Great stress is laid on the resurrection, as in
the Gospel, where he is called the Resurrection and the Life. The
exalted Logos-Messiah has the keys of death and Hades.844844Apoc. 1:5, 17, 18 2:8; comp.
John 5:21, 25; 6:39, 40 –11:25. He is a
sharer in the universal government of God; he is the mediatorial ruler
of the world, "the Prince of the kings of the earth" "King of kings and
Lord of lords."845845Apoc. 1:5; 3:21; 17:14;
19:16. The apocalyptic seer likewise brings in the
idea of life in its highest sense as a reward of faith in Christ to
those who overcome and are faithful unto death, Christ will give "a
crown of life," and a seat on his throne. He "shall guide them unto
fountains of waters of life; and God shall wipe away every tear from
their eyes."846846Apoc. 2:10; 3:21; 7:17; 14:1-5;
21:6, 7; 22:1-5. Comp. Gebhardt, l.c., 106-128,
343-353.

IV. The Doctrine of the Holy
Spirit (Pneumatology). This is most fully set forth in the
farewell discourser, of our Lord, which are reported by John
exclusively. The Spirit whom Christ promised to send after his return
to the Father, is called the Paraclete, i.e., the Advocate or
Counsellor, Helper, who pleads the cause of the believers, directs,
supports, and comforts them.847847John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7.
Comp. also 1 John 2:1, where Christ is likewise called παράκλητος.
He is our Advocate objectively at the throne of the
Father, the Holy Spirit is our Advocate subjectively in our spiritual
experience. The E. V. renders the word in all these passages, except
the last, by " Comforter" (Consolator), which rests on a
confusion of the passive παράκλητος
with the active παρακλήτωρ. See my notes in Lange’s Com.
on John, pp. 440 sqq., 468 sqq. He is "another Advocate" (ἄλλος
παράκλητος), Christ himself being the first
Advocate who intercedes for believers at the throne of the Father, as
their eternal High priest. The Spirit proceeds (eternally) from the
Father, and was sent by the Father and the Son on the day of
Pentecost.848848 There is a distinction between
the eternal procession (ἐκπόρευσις)of the Spirit from the Father (παρὰ τοῦ
Πατρὸς
ἐκπορεύεται, procedit, John 15:26), and the temporal mission
(πέμψις) of the Spirit from the Father and the Son (15:26, where Christ
says of the Spirit: ὃν
ἐγὼ
πέμψω, to, and 14:26, where he
says: ὃ
πέμψει ὁ
πατὴρ ἐν
τῷ
ὀνόματί
μου). The Greek church to this
day strongly insists on this distinction, and teaches an eternal
procession of the Spirit from the Father alone, and a
temporal mission of the Spirit by the Father and the Son.
The difference between the present ἐκπορεύεται
and the future πέμψω seems to favor such a distinction, but the exclusive alone
(μόνον) in
regard to the procession is an addition of the Greek church as much as
the Filioque is an addition of the Latin church to the original
Nicene Creed. It is doubtful whether John meant to make a metaphysical
distinction between procession and mission. But the distinction between
the eternal trinity of the divine being and the temporal trinity of the
divine revelation has an exegetical basis in the pre-existence
of the Logos and the Spirit. The trinitarian revelation reflects the
trinitarian essence; in other words, God reveals himself as he is, as
Father, Son, and Spirit. We have a right to reason from the revelation
of God to his nature, but with proper reverence and modesty; for who
can exhaust the ocean of the Deity! He reveals Christ to the heart and glorifies
him (ἐμὲ
δοξάσει);
he bears witness to him
(μαρτυρήσει
περὶ
ἐμοῦ);
he calls to remembrance and explains his teaching
(ὑμᾶς
διδάξει
πάντα καὶ
ὑπομνήσει
ὑμᾶς
πάντα ἅ
εἷπον
ὑμῖν
ἐγώ); he leads the disciples into the
whole truth (ὁδηγήσει
ὑμᾶς εἰς
τὴν
ἀλήθειαν
πᾶσαν);
he takes out of the fulness of Christ and shows it to them
(ἐκ τοῦ
ἐμοῦ
λαμβάνει
καὶ
ἀναγγελεῖ
ὑμῖν).
The Holy Spirit is the Mediator and Intercessor between Christ and the
believer, as Christ is the Mediator between God and the world. He is the
Spirit of truth and of holiness. He convicts
(ἐλέγχει)
the world, that is all men who come under his influnce, in respect of sin
(περὶ
ἁμαρτίας),
of righteousness,
(δικαιοσύνης),
and of judgment
(κρίσεως);
and this conviction will result either in the conversion, or in the
impenitence of the sinner. The operation of the Spirit accompanies the
preaching of the word, and always internal in the sphere of the heart and
conscience. He is one of the three witnesses and gives efficacy to the
other two witnesses of Christ on earth, the baptism
(τὸ
ὓδωρ), and the atoning death (τὸ
αἷμα) of Christ.8498491 John 5:8. There are different
interpretations of water and blood: 1st, reference to the miraculous flow of
blood and water from the wounded side of Christ, John 19:34;
2d,
Christ’s baptism, and Christ’s
atoning death; 3d,
the two sacraments which he instituted as perpetual memorials. I would
adopt the last view, if it were not for τὸ
αἶμα, which
nowhere designates the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,
and more naturally refers to the blood of Christ shed for the remission
of sins. The passage on the three heavenly witnesses in 5:7, formerly
quoted as a proof text for the doctrine of the trinity, is now
generally given up as a mediaeval interpolation, and must be rejected
on internal as well as external grounds; for John would never have
written: "the Father, the Word, and the Spirit," but either "the
Father, the Son, and the Spirit," or God, the Word
(Logos), and the Spirit."

V. Christian Life. It
begins with a new birth from above or from the Holy Spirit. Believers
are children of God who are "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."8508502 John 1:13: τέκνα
θεοῦ ... ἐκ
θεοῦ
ἐγεννήθησαν. The classical section on the new birth is
Christ’s discourse with Nicodemus, 3:1-15. The
terms γεννηθῆναι
ἄνωθεν, to be born anew, afresh, or
from above, i. e., from heaven, Comp. 3:31; 19:11 (the reference
is not to a repetition, again, a second time, πάλιν,
δεύτερον, but to an analogous process); 3: 6, 7; γένηθῆναι
ἐξ ὒδατος
–ϊκαὶ–ͅϊπνεύματοςof water (baptism)
and spirit, 3:5;ἐκ
θεοῦ, of
God, ἐκ τοῦ
οὐρανοῦfrom heaven, are equivalent.
John himself most frequently uses ἐκ θεοῦ, 1:13; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18. He does not
use ἀναγεννάομαι
, to be begotten or
born again (but it occurs in Justin Martyr’s
quotation, Apol. I. 61; also in 1 Pet. 1:23, ἄαγεννημένοι
... διὰ λόγου
ζῶντος
θεοῦ,
and 1 Pet. 1:3, ἀναγεννήσας
ἡμᾶς είς
ἐλπίδα), and the noun ἀναγέννησις,regeneration, is not
found at all in the Greek Test. (though often in the Greek fathers);
but the analogous παλιγγενεσία
occurs once in connection with baptism, Tit. 3:5
(ἔσωσεν
ἡμᾶς δαὶ
λουτροῦ
παλιγγενεσίας
καὶ
ἀνακαινώσεως
πνεύματος
ἁγίου),
and once in a more comprehensive sense of the final restitution and
consummation of all things, Matt. 19:18. Paul speaks of the new
creature in Christ (καινὴ
κτίσις , 2
Cor. 5:17) and of the new (καινὸς
ἄνθρωπος
,Eph. 4:24). In the Rabbinical theology
regeneration meant simply the change of the external status of a
proselyte to Judaism. It is a "new" birth
compared with the old, a birth "from God," as compared with that from
man, a birth from the Holy "Spirit," in distinction from carnal birth,
a birth "from heaven," as opposed to earthly birth. The life of the
believer does not descend through the channels of fallen nature, but
requires a creative act of the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the
gospel. The life of the regenerate is free from the principle and power
of sin. "Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed
abideth in him; and he cannot sin because he is begotten of God."8518511 John 3:9; comp. 5:18. But
5:16 implies that a "brother" may sin, though not "unto death," and
1:10 also excludes the idea of absolute freedom from sin in the
present state. Over
him the devil has no power.8528521 John 5:18: ὁ πονηρὸς
οὐχ
ἃπτεται
αὐτοῦ.

The new life is the life of Christ in the soul. It
is eternal intrinsically and as to duration. Eternal life in man
consists in the knowledge of the only true God and of Jesus
Christ—a knowledge which implies full sympathy and
communion of love.853853John 17:3, words of our Lord in
the sacerdotal prayer. It begins here in faith; hence the oft-repeated
declaration that he who believes in Christ has (ἔχει) eternal life.8548541 John 5:12, 13: ὁ ἔχων
τὸν υἱὸν
ἔχει τὴν
ζωὴν ... ζωὴν
ἔχετε
αἰώνιον. Comp. the words of Christ, John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47, 54; and
of the Evangelist, 20:31. But it will not appear in
its full development till the time of his glorious manifestation, when
we shall be like him and see him even as he is.8558551 John 3:2: οἷδαμεν
ὅτι ἐὰν
φανέρωθῇ
(he, or it), ὅμοιοι
αὐτῷ
ἐσόμεθα,
ὅτι
οψόμεθα
αὐτὸν
καθώς
ἐστιν. Faith is the medium of
communication, the bond of union with Christ. Faith is the victory over
the world, already here in principle.8568561 John 5:4: αὕτη
ἐστὶν ἡ
νικήσασα
τὸν κόσμον,
ἡ πίστις
ἡμῶν.

John’s idea of life eternal takes
the place of Paul’s idea of righteousness, but both
agree in the high conception of faith as the one indispensable
condition of securing it by uniting us to Christ, who is both
righteousness and life eternal.857857 John uses the term δικαιοσύνη,
but never δικαίωσις
orδικαιόω. A striking example of religious agreement and theological
difference.

The life of the Christian, moreover, is a
communion with Christ and with the Father in the Holy Spirit. Our Lord
prayed before his passion that the believers of that and all future
ages might be one with him, even as he is one with the Father, and that
they may enjoy his glory. John writes his first Epistle for the purpose
that his readers may have "fellowship with the Father, and with his Son
Jesus Christ, and that thus their joy may be made full."858858John 17:22-24; 1 John 1:3,
4. This
fellowship is only another word for love, and love to God is
inseparable from love to the brethren. "If God so loved us, we also
ought to love one another." "God is love; and he that abideth in love
abideth in God and God abideth in him." Love to the brethren is the
true test of practical Christianity.8598591 John 3:11, 23; 4:7, 11; comp.
John 13:34, 35; 15:12, 17. This brotherly fellowship
is the true essence of the Church, which is nowhere even mentioned in
John’s Gospel and First Epistle.860860 The word ἐκκλησία
occurs in the third Epistle, but in the sense of a
local congregation. Of the external organization of the church John is
silent; he does not even report the institution of the sacraments,
though he speaks of the spiritual meaning of baptism (John 3:5), and
indirectly of the spiritual meaning of the Lord’s
Supper (6:53-56).

Love to God and to the brethren is no mere
sentiment, but an active power, and manifests itself in the keeping of
God’s commandments.8618611 John 2:3, 4; 3:22, 24; 4:7,
11; 5:2, 3; 2 John 6; comp. the Gospel, John 14:15, 21: "If ye love me,
ye will keep my commandments," etc.

Here again John and Paul meet in the idea of love,
as the highest of the Christian graces which abides forever when faith
shall have passed into sight, and hope into fruition.862862Rom. 13:7-10; 1 Cor.
13:1-13.

Notes.

The incarnation is
expressed by John briefly and tersely in the phrase "The Word became
flesh" (John 1:14).

I. The meaning of σάρξ. Apollinaris confined "flesh" to the
body, including the animal soul, and taught that the Logos occupied the
place of the rational soul or spirit (νοῦς,
πνεῦμα) in Christ; that consequently he was not
a full man, but a sort of middle being between God and man, half divine
and haIf human, not wholly divine and wholly human. This view was
condemned as heretical by the Nicene church, but renewed substantially
by the Tübingen school, as being the doctrine of John.
According to Baur (l.c., p. 363) σάρξ
ἐγενετοis not equivalent to (ἄνθρωπος
ἐγένετο, but means that the Logos assumed a
human body and continued otherwise the same. The incarnation was only
an incidental phenomenon in the unchanging personality of the Logos.
Moreover the flesh of Christ was not like that of other men, but almost
immaterial, so at; to be able to walk on the lake (John 6:16;
Comp. 7:10, 15; 8:59 10:39). To this exegesis we object:

1. John expressly ascribes to Christ a
soul, John 10:11, 15, 17; 12:27 (ἡ
ψυχῇ μου
τετάρακται), and a spirit, 11:33 (ἐνεβριμήσατο
τῷ
πνεύματι); 13:21 (ἐταραχθη
τῷ
πνεύματι); 19:30 (παρέδωκεν
τὸ
πνεῦμα). It may be said that
pneu’ma is here nothing more than the animal soul,
because the same affection is attributed to both, and because it was
surrendered in death. But Christ calls himself in John frequently "the
Son of man" 1:51, etc.),
and once "a man" (ἄνθρωπος,8:40), which certainly must include the more
important intellectual and spiritual part as well as the body.

2. "Flesh" is often used in the Old and New
Testament for the whole man, as in the phrase "all flesh" (πᾶσα
σάρξ, every mortal man), or μία
σαρ́ξ(John 17:2; Rom. 3:20; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16). In this passage it suited
John’s idea better than ἄνθρωπος,because it more strongly expresses
the condescension of the Logos to the human nature in its present
condition, with its weakness, trials, temptations, and sufferings. He
completely identified himself with our earthly lot, and became
homogeneous with us, even to the likeness, though not the essence, of
sin (Rom.
8:3; comp. Heb. 2:14;
5:8, 9). "Flesh" then, when
ascribed to Christ, has the same comprehensive meaning in John as it
has in Paul (comp. also 1 Tim. 3:16). It is animated flesh, and the soul of
that flesh contains the spiritual as well as the physical life.

II. Another difficulty is presented by the verb
ἐγένετο. The champions of the modern
Kenosis theory (Thomasius, Gess, Ebrard, Godet, etc.), while differing
from the Apollinarian substitution of the Logos for a rational human
soul in Christ, assert that the Logos himself because a human soul by
voluntary transformation; and so they explain ejgevneto and the famous
Pauline phrase ἑαυτὸν
ἐκένωσεν,
μορφὴν
δούλου
λαβών(Phil. 2:7). As the water was changed into wine at
Cana (John 2:9:
Τὸ ὕδωρ
οἷνον
γεγενημένον), so the Logos in infinite
self-denial changed his divine being into a human being during the
state of his humiliation, and thus led a single life, not a double life
(as the Chalcedonian theory of two complete natures simultaneously
coexisting in the same person from the manger to the cross seems to
imply). But

1. The verb ἐγένετοmust be understood in agreement
with the parallel passages:, "he came in the flesh," 1 John
4:2 (ἐν σαρκὶ
ἐληλυθότα); 2 John 7 (ἐρχόμενον
ἐν σαρκί), with this difference, that
"became" indicates the realness of Christ’s manhood,
"came" the continuance of his godhood. Compare also
Paul’s expression, ἐφανερώθη
ἐν σαρκί, 1 Tim. 3:16.

2. Whatever may be the objections to the
Chalcedonian dyophysitism, they cannot be removed by running the
Kenosis to the extent of a self-suspension of the Logos or an actual
surrender of his essential attributes; for this is a metaphysical
impossibility, and inconsistent with the unchangeableness of God and
the intertrinitarian process. The Logos did not cease to be God when he
entered into the human state of existence, nor did he cease to be man
when he returned to the state of divine glory which he had with the
Father before the foundation of the world.

III. Beyschlag (Die Christologie des N. T,
p. 168) denies the identity of the Logos with Christ, and resolves the
Logos into a divine principle, instead of a person. "Der Logos ist nicht die Person
Christi ... sondern er ist das gottheitliche Princip dieser
menschlichen Persönlichkeit." He assumes a gradual unfolding of the
Logos principle in the human person of Christ. But the personality of
the Logos is taught in John 1:1–3, and ἐγένετοdenotes a completed act. We must
remember, however, that personality in the trinity and personality of
the Logos are different from personality of man. Human speech is
inadequate to express the distinction.

816 Herein Baur agrees with Neander
and Schmid. He says of the Johannean type (l.c., p. 351):
In ihm erreicht die neuteitamentliche
Theologie ihre höchste Stufe und ihre vollendetste
Form." This admission makes it all the
more impossible to attribute the fourth Gospel to a literary forger of
the second century. See also some excellent remarks of Weiss, pp. 605
sqq., and the concluding chapter of Reuss on Paul and John.

817 For the theology of the
Apocalypse as compared with that of the Gospel and Epistles of John,
see especially Gebhardt, The Doctrine of the Apoc., transl. by
Jefferson, Edinb., 1878.

822John 4:24; 1 John 1:5; 4:8, 16.
The first definition or oracle is from Christ’s
dialogue with the woman of Samaria, who could, of course, not grasp the
full meaning, but understood sufficiently its immediate practical
application to the question of dispute between the Samaritans and the
Jews concerning the worship on Gerizim or Jerusalem.

823 There is a remarkable variation
of reading in John 1:18 between μονογενής
θεός ,one who is
God only-begotten, andὁ
μονογενής
υἱός ,the
only-begotten Son. (A third
reading: ὁ
μονογενὴς
θεός ,"the
only-begotten God," found in א’ and 33, arose
simply from a combination of the two readings, the article being
improperly transferred from the second to the first.) The two readings
are of equal antiquity; θεός is
supported by the oldest Greek MSS., nearly all Alexandrian or Egyptian
(א*
BC*L, also the Peshitto Syr.);υἱός by
the oldest versions (Itala Vulg., Curet. Syr., also by the secondary
uncials and all known cursives except 33). The usual abbreviations in
the uncial MS., Θο-for θεός
and ΥΟ for υἱός ,may
easily be confounded. The connection of μονογενής
withθεόςis less
natural than with υἱὸς although John undoubtedly could call the Son θεός (not ὁ
θεός), and
did so in 1:1. Μονογενής
θεόςsimply combines
the two attributes of the Logos, θεός 1:1,
and μονογενής,
1:14. For a learned and ingenious defence of
θεός see Hort’s Dissertations (Cambridge,
1877), Westcott on St. John (p. 71), and Westcott and
Hort’s Gr. Test. Introd. and Append., p. 74.
Tischendorf and nearly all the German commentators (except Weiss)
adopt υἱός, and
Dr. Abbot, of Cambridge, Mass., has written two very able papers in
favor of this reading, one in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1861,
pp. 840-872, and another in the " Unitarian Review" for June, 1875. The
Westminster Revision first adopted " God" in the text, but afterwards
put it on the margin. Both readings are intrinsically unobjectionable,
and the sense is essentially the same. Μονογενής
does not necessarily convey the Nicene idea of
eternal generation, but simply the unique character and superiority of
the eternal and uncreated sonship of Christ over the sonship of
believers which is a gift of grace. It shows his intimate relation to
the Father, as the Pauline πρωτότοκος
his sovereign relation to the world.

824 Lit."towards the bosom"
(εἰς
τὸν
κόλπον),
i.e., leaning on, and moving to the bosom. It expresses the
union of motion and rest and the closest and tenderest intimacy, as
between mother and child, like the German term Schoosskind,
bosom-child. Comp. πρός τὸν
θεόν John 1:1 and
Prov. 8:30, where Wisdom (the Logos) says: "I was near Him as one
brought up with Him, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always
before him."

825 With this sentence the Prologue
returns to the beginning and suggests the best reason why Christ is
called Logos. He is the Exegete, the Expounder, the Interpreter of the
hidden being, of God. "The word ἐξηγήσατο
used by classical writers of the interpretation of
divine mysteries. The absence of the object in the original is
remarkable. Thus the literal rendering is simply, he made
declaration (Vulg. ipse enarravit). Comp. Acts 15: 4.
Westcott, in loc. See the classical parallels in
Wetstein.

826John 1:1, 14:1 John 1:1; Rev.
19:13. The Logos theory of John is the fruitful germ of the
speculations of the Greek church on the mysteries of the incarnation
and the trinity. See my ed. of Lange’s Com. on
John, pp. 51 and 55 sqq., where also the literature is given. On
the latest discussions see Weiss in the sixth ed. of
Meyer’s Com. on John (1880), pp. 49
sqq. Λόγος
means both ratio andoratio reason and
speech, which are inseparably connected. " Logos," being masculine in
Greek, is better fitted as a designation of Christ than our neuter "
Word." Hence Ewald, in defiance of German grammar, renders it "der
Wort."On the apocalyptic designation ὁ λογος
τοῦ θυοῦ and on the christology of the Apocalypse, see Gebhardt,
l.c., 94 and 333 sqq. On Philo’s idea of the
Logos I refer to Schürer, Neutestam. Zeitgeschichte,
pp. 648 sqq., and the works of Gfrörer, Zeller, Frankel,
etc., there quoted.

827 These three ideas are contained
in the first verse of the Gospel, which has stimulated and puzzled the
profoundest minds from Origen and Augustin to Schelling and Goethe.
Mark the unique union of transparent simplicity and inexhaustible
depth, and the symmetry of the three clauses. The subject (λόγος) and the verb (ἧν) are three times
repeated. " The three clauses contain all that it is possible for man
to realize as to the essential nature of the Word in relation to time
and mode of being and character: He was (1) in the beginning: He
was (2) with God: He was (3) God. At the same time these
three clauses answer to the three great moments of the Incarnation of
the Word declared in John 1:14. He who ’was
God,’ became flesh: He who
’was with God,’ tabernacled among
us (comp. 1 John 1:2): He who ’was in the
beginning,’ became (in time)." Westcott (in
Speaker’s Com.). A similar interpretation is
given by Lange. The personality of the Logos is denied by
Beyschlag. See Notes (in text at end of § 72).

828 Here we have the germ (but the
germ only) of the orthodox distinction between unity of essence and
trinity of persons or hypostases; also of the distinction between an
immanent, eternal trinity, and an economical trinity, which is revealed
in time (in the works of creation, redemption, and sanctification). A
Hebrew monotheist could not conceive of an eternal and independent
being of a different essence (ἑτεροούσις) existing besides the one God. This would be
dualism.

829John 1:3, with a probable
allusion to Gen. 1:3, "God said," as ἐν αρχῇ
refers to bereshith, Gen. 1:1. The negative
repetition οὐδὲ
ἔν, prorsus nihil,
not even one thing (stronger than
οὐδένnihil), excludes
every form of dualism (against the Gnostics), and makes the
πάντα absolutely unlimited. The Socinian interpretation, which
confines it to the moral creation, is grammatically
impossible.

830John 1:14: ὁ λόγος
σὰρξ
ἐγένετο a sentence of immeasurable import, the leading idea not
only of the Prologue, but of the Christian religion and of the history
of mankind. It marks the close of the preparation for Christianity and
the beginning of its introduction into the human race. Bengel calls
attention to the threefold antithetic correspondence between 1:1 and
1:14: The Logos was (ἧν) in the
beginning became (ἐγένετο)

God, flesh,

with God. and dwelt among us.

831 Paul expresses the same idea:
God sent his Son "in the likeness of the flesh of sin," Rom. 8:3; comp.
Heb. 2:17; 4:15. See the note at the close of the section.

832John 1:14: ἐσκήνωσεν
ἐν ἡμῖν, in allusion to the indwelling of Jehovah in the holy of
holies of the tabernacle (σκηνή) and
the temple. The humanity of Christ is now the tabernacle of God, and
the believers are the spectators of that glory. Comp. Rev. 7:15;
21:3

847John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7.
Comp. also 1 John 2:1, where Christ is likewise called παράκλητος.
He is our Advocate objectively at the throne of the
Father, the Holy Spirit is our Advocate subjectively in our spiritual
experience. The E. V. renders the word in all these passages, except
the last, by " Comforter" (Consolator), which rests on a
confusion of the passive παράκλητος
with the active παρακλήτωρ. See my notes in Lange’s Com.
on John, pp. 440 sqq., 468 sqq.

848 There is a distinction between
the eternal procession (ἐκπόρευσις)of the Spirit from the Father (παρὰ τοῦ
Πατρὸς
ἐκπορεύεται, procedit, John 15:26), and the temporal mission
(πέμψις) of the Spirit from the Father and the Son (15:26, where Christ
says of the Spirit: ὃν
ἐγὼ
πέμψω, to, and 14:26, where he
says: ὃ
πέμψει ὁ
πατὴρ ἐν
τῷ
ὀνόματί
μου). The Greek church to this
day strongly insists on this distinction, and teaches an eternal
procession of the Spirit from the Father alone, and a
temporal mission of the Spirit by the Father and the Son.
The difference between the present ἐκπορεύεται
and the future πέμψω seems to favor such a distinction, but the exclusive alone
(μόνον) in
regard to the procession is an addition of the Greek church as much as
the Filioque is an addition of the Latin church to the original
Nicene Creed. It is doubtful whether John meant to make a metaphysical
distinction between procession and mission. But the distinction between
the eternal trinity of the divine being and the temporal trinity of the
divine revelation has an exegetical basis in the pre-existence
of the Logos and the Spirit. The trinitarian revelation reflects the
trinitarian essence; in other words, God reveals himself as he is, as
Father, Son, and Spirit. We have a right to reason from the revelation
of God to his nature, but with proper reverence and modesty; for who
can exhaust the ocean of the Deity!

8491 John 5:8. There are different
interpretations of water and blood: 1st, reference to the miraculous flow of
blood and water from the wounded side of Christ, John 19:34;
2d,
Christ’s baptism, and Christ’s
atoning death; 3d,
the two sacraments which he instituted as perpetual memorials. I would
adopt the last view, if it were not for τὸ
αἶμα, which
nowhere designates the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,
and more naturally refers to the blood of Christ shed for the remission
of sins. The passage on the three heavenly witnesses in 5:7, formerly
quoted as a proof text for the doctrine of the trinity, is now
generally given up as a mediaeval interpolation, and must be rejected
on internal as well as external grounds; for John would never have
written: "the Father, the Word, and the Spirit," but either "the
Father, the Son, and the Spirit," or God, the Word
(Logos), and the Spirit."

8502 John 1:13: τέκνα
θεοῦ ... ἐκ
θεοῦ
ἐγεννήθησαν. The classical section on the new birth is
Christ’s discourse with Nicodemus, 3:1-15. The
terms γεννηθῆναι
ἄνωθεν, to be born anew, afresh, or
from above, i. e., from heaven, Comp. 3:31; 19:11 (the reference
is not to a repetition, again, a second time, πάλιν,
δεύτερον, but to an analogous process); 3: 6, 7; γένηθῆναι
ἐξ ὒδατος
–ϊκαὶ–ͅϊπνεύματοςof water (baptism)
and spirit, 3:5;ἐκ
θεοῦ, of
God, ἐκ τοῦ
οὐρανοῦfrom heaven, are equivalent.
John himself most frequently uses ἐκ θεοῦ, 1:13; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18. He does not
use ἀναγεννάομαι
, to be begotten or
born again (but it occurs in Justin Martyr’s
quotation, Apol. I. 61; also in 1 Pet. 1:23, ἄαγεννημένοι
... διὰ λόγου
ζῶντος
θεοῦ,
and 1 Pet. 1:3, ἀναγεννήσας
ἡμᾶς είς
ἐλπίδα), and the noun ἀναγέννησις,regeneration, is not
found at all in the Greek Test. (though often in the Greek fathers);
but the analogous παλιγγενεσία
occurs once in connection with baptism, Tit. 3:5
(ἔσωσεν
ἡμᾶς δαὶ
λουτροῦ
παλιγγενεσίας
καὶ
ἀνακαινώσεως
πνεύματος
ἁγίου),
and once in a more comprehensive sense of the final restitution and
consummation of all things, Matt. 19:18. Paul speaks of the new
creature in Christ (καινὴ
κτίσις , 2
Cor. 5:17) and of the new (καινὸς
ἄνθρωπος
,Eph. 4:24). In the Rabbinical theology
regeneration meant simply the change of the external status of a
proselyte to Judaism.

8511 John 3:9; comp. 5:18. But
5:16 implies that a "brother" may sin, though not "unto death," and
1:10 also excludes the idea of absolute freedom from sin in the
present state.

860 The word ἐκκλησία
occurs in the third Epistle, but in the sense of a
local congregation. Of the external organization of the church John is
silent; he does not even report the institution of the sacraments,
though he speaks of the spiritual meaning of baptism (John 3:5), and
indirectly of the spiritual meaning of the Lord’s
Supper (6:53-56).